develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from October 2016

Re: perlnewmod: module-starter and ExtUtils::MakeMaker?

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Sawyer X
Date:
October 26, 2016 20:38
Subject:
Re: perlnewmod: module-starter and ExtUtils::MakeMaker?
Message ID:
f9c404ef-d9bb-7f77-caf5-d723dcc67283@gmail.com


On 10/23/2016 01:03 AM, Joseph Brenner wrote:
>> See http://shadow.cat/blog/matt-s-trout/mstpan-11/ for one set of opinions on the current field.
> Thanks, that more-or-less agrees with my impression.  I'm gravitating
> toward Dist::Milla + MBT myself, but I remain mildly, let's say
> annoyed, that the situation is still a bit up-in-the-air.

I don't think it's "up-in-the-air".

Yves provided a good answer, explaining EU::MM provides something others
do not: An answer which is *correct* and available in core.
Module::Build isn't (and has many problems, leading to
Module::Build::Tiny). Module::Build::Tiny is simple and provides a proof
of concept (as explained by Dan) which doesn't cover all EU::MM or M::B
can do. Dist::Zilla, Dist::Milla, and Minilla (including a few others,
some more opinionated, some less) are managers on top of those builders,
so that's a different league to begin with. You'll need to cover the
different layers (builder, releaser, scaffolder, tester, etc.) which
constitute what those do. Eventually those managers use one of the
builders anyway underneath. This is not to mention that a user will
still need to install a fair number of dependencies from CPAN.

Given all of these issues, Andy Lester's response captures the current
situation in my opinion: While EU::MM is probably the safest thing to
include in perlnewmod, we can still include a discussion of the
available builders, the different layers, and encourage users to
research if they would like to.

Thread Previous | Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About